@netvegetableNOT: "lol. What the hell is wrong with this idea? <url> Australian engineer Bryan Roberts wants to build a power station in the sky a cluster of flying windmills soaring 15,000 feet in the air but is having trouble raising enough money to get the project off the ground. After 25 years of research, Roberts has designed a helicopter-like rotorcraft to hoist a wind turbine high into the air, where winds are persistent and strong. The craft, which is powered by its own electricity and can stay aloft for months, feeds electricity to the ground through a cable. Roberts, a professor of engineering at the University of Technology, Sydney, believes there is enough energy in high-altitude winds to satisfy the world's demands. Wind-tunnel data suggests a cluster of 600 flying electric generators, or FEGs, could produce three times as much energy as the United States' most productive nuclear power plant. Roberts has teamed up with Sky WindPower, a San Diego startup that is trying to commercialize his invention. The company has Federal Aviation Administration approval to conduct tests of the technology in the California desert, but needs $3 million to build full-size flying generators. The company is having trouble raising the cash because there isn't likely to be an immediate return on investors' money. High-altitude winds could provide a potentially enormous renewable energy source, and scientists like Roberts believe flying windmills could put an end to dependence on fossil fuels. At 15,000 feet, winds are strong and constant. On the ground, wind is often unreliable the biggest problem for ground-based wind turbines. "For FEGs, the winds are much more persistent than on ground-based machines," said Roberts. "That's part of the benefit, more power and greater concentration." Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said tapping into just 1 percent of the energy produced by high-altitude winds could satisfy a lot of the world's power needs. "It's absurd that all this time we have turned a blind eye to the energy right above our heads," he said. "High-altitude wind power represents the most concentrated flux of renewable energy found on Earth." #politics irc.austnet.org (the aussie politics channel!) #political_forum irc.undernet.org "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill" @gwinnetSPMA: "nothing wrong at all, as the price of oil rises people will start having a more serious look at many crazy ideas. eg solar array at Moree using panels and rocks as heat sink. There is another solar (heat) generator being looked at in western NSW (enviromission <url> Interesting site that one will read some more. "netvegetable" <email_address> wrote in message news:<email_address> <quote> <url> station in the in the air but off the ground. helicopter-like where winds are own electricity ground through a Technology, winds to satisfy of 600 flying much energy as startup that is to conduct tests million to build raising the on investors' renewable energy windmills could put an ground, wind is wind turbines. ground-based power and National produced by power needs. to the energy represents the Earth." people are" @vhbdq: "<quote> <rest snipped> The mind truly boggles at this idea (I have a vivid imagination...) but hell, why not? After all, lots of people thought the Wright Brothers were crackpots.... Coop" @notrthomas: ""Coop" <email_address> wrote in message news:<email_address> <quote> "is having trouble raising enough money to get the project off the ground." Yair. Nothing like the trouble he'll have when the wind drops and the whole bloody lot comes down again.................. You can hear the lawyers licking their lips already!!!" @BernardZ: "<email_address> says... <quote> Many good ideas fail some as they do not get the money to fund the project and some because it turns out not to be a good idea. Unfortunately sometimes bad ideas get funding and sometimes good ideas do not. It is frightening when you read many of these posts and you realize that most have been carefully thought out before posting. Observations of Bernard - No 73" @jguy: "<quote> It is fundamentally similar to hydroelectric power, tapping the energy of rivers by building dams, which, done on a large scale, has ended up in ecological disasters. The Devil (and perhaps God) knows the results of tapping the energy of high-altitude winds. Don't even mention the cost (in energy) of building those power stations, and moving and keeping them up there. And transmitting the energy down. They worry about mobile phone transmission towers of a few kilowatts, and overhead powerlines, what about gigawatts of power beamed down from 5 km above? Oh wait... it's even worse: "The craft, which is powered by its own electricity and can stay aloft for months, feeds electricity to the ground through a _cable_" (my emphasis). Q: How much do 5km of electrical cable weigh?" @aquarius_master: "Completely ridiculous program, considering the Telsa type discoveries still waiting to be implemented. Your appraisal is quite correct indeed Monsieur ! Bravo ! Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud Exploration Geologist Australia Mining Pioneer Discoverer & Legal Owner of Telfer, Kintyre & Nifty Mines The Great Sandy Desert of Australia Founder of the True Geology ~~Ignorance Is The Cosmic Sin, The One Never Forgiven ! ~~ "Jacques Guy" <email_address> a �crit dans le message de news: 425ab6ef$<email_address> <quote>" @frankv: "<quote> Yup. And many more bad ideas fail because they don't get funding. These helicopters... what stops them from blowing off downwind? And therefore not producing any electricity at all? I guess that they're really like giant kites. So the cable needs to be perhaps 20,000ft long. I guess the obvious place to fly these would be on the Eastern (downwind) coast, so that they're actually out over the sea. Presumably when a hurricane (or calm patch) comes along, you wind the things in until its safe to put them back up again. It's curious that they compare 600 flying windmills to 1 large nuclear station. How do they compare to (say) 600 terrestrial windmills, or a hydroelectric plant? Frank" @ventus45: "<quote> A far more elegant solution all around, is to simply covert all the existing coal fired plants to geo-steam plants, by drilling a hole 30km or so deep, straight down. So easy, so cheap, so simple, so eco-green, the works." @JBenginospam: "It would be hard enough to keep a kite aloft a 15,000 feet let alone get any energy from it. A cord to the moon and use the earth's rotation may work better for perpetual motion. news:OtA6e.17793$<email_address> <quote> d but ground." @sylvia: "<quote> It may be perfectly viable technically, as are many other sustainable schemes. Where these things so often fail is in the economics. Even wind-power, which has reached a fairly mature technical position, is still so capital intensive that it cannot compete with existing fossil fuel generation. I suspect we may find that this is always the case, because fossil fuel generators are also mature technologies, and it is probably always going to be easier to use the nice concentrated energy sources that nature has put together for us in the past, than to capture more diffuse but sustainable energy. So step one is to persuade the public that they have to pay 60% more for their electricity. Sylvia." @jguy: "<quote> Step zero is to persuade the public that they have to accept nuclear power. Which, judging from past form, will be happen only once the imbeciles in charges have mined and exported all the uranium in the country." @brengsek: ""netvegetable" <email_address> wrote in message news:<email_address> <quote> Sounds like a great idea. All we have to do is to repeal the Law of Conservation of Energy, so that the energy required to keep the flying windmill on point is less than the energy generated by the wind. "but is having trouble raising enough money to get the project off the ground." He should hire Max Bialystock as a consultant. Izzy" @brengsek: ""Boy Blue" <email_address> wrote in message news:110420052318073041%<email_address> <quote> I beg your pardon. My company worked intensively on the Orbital Engine. A colleague had the unpleasant staff of breaking the news to Ralph Sarich: The engine was never going to work, but the fuel injection system was a winner. Ralph was paying the bill, and took the advice. No conspiracy, just a very thorough investigation of the technology. Shalom, Izzy snip " @NotForJunkEmail: "On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:32:06 +0900, netvegetable <quote> 15,000 ft isn't going to cut it.. Northern hemisphere is around 500w sq meter. Southern hemisphere is around 1200w sq meter.. Peak energy is 35000ft.. (5 to 10Kw per meter..) Cable length is going to be at least 1.4x the height above the ground.. Probably 2 to 3x.. It must be able to withstand the force of full output power, plus the weight of the cable assembly. That will definitly tax the limits of available cable technology. Quite a bit of that energy must be spent keeping the assembly aloft.. Windmills.. genny.. 5 to 15 Miles of Cable.. (very heavy) I.E. If you draw off too much energy .. The whole assembly sinks.. If too little energy is available, one must put energy back into the system to keep it aloft. Now isn't that a pisser!! Next, the problem with crossed cables. An active navigation system needed otherwise units will end up getting tangled. I.E. More power wasted." @sylvia: "<quote> If there's really any danger of running out of uranium in the foreseeable future, then it must raise questions about the sustainability of that approach. However, my main objection to your proposal is simply that if the public are unwilling to be persuaded about nuclear power, then we need to find an alternative solution that they will accept. Failing that we'll certainly just go on digging up coal and burning it until there is none left - at which point the more expensive alternatives will perforce be adopted, assuming the earth doesn't become uninhabitable beforehand due to climatic change. Sylvia." @sylvia: " All we have to do is to repeal the Law of Conservation of Energy, so that <quote> How is there a conservation of energy issue here? I question the economics of the proposal, but the physics seems straight forward enough. Sylvia." @hsnape: "<quote> My guess is that Iskandar is alluding to the fact that the energy generation capability of the device is bounded by the amount of resitance it offers to the free passage of the wind. Thus any effort to "maintain" position, would require an equal amount of energy to propel it. So the net energy able to be extracted would be Zero (not counting efficiency losses). I guess he is expecting that tethering isn't an option." @sylvia: "<quote> On the face of it tethering is a prerequisite, since otherwise any system that could work in moving air could equally well work in still air (principle of relativity). On my reading of the proposal, it IS a tethered system. Sylvia." @jguy: "<quote> Oh, elementary physics, you know. But, like urban legends have it that the state of Tennessee (or perhaps Alabama) once did, passing a law that pi = 3 exactly, all we need to do is pass a law that the conservation of energy does not apply, and Bob's our uncle and good Mr Alexander Worldsea (did I get that right?) our shepherd (thanks, Sasha, repealing the Law of Conservation of Energy is such a great idea... I kick myself for not having thought of it first. Let's team up and cobble together a new party under the aegis of Aristophanesseeing that them flying windmills live in cloud cuckoo land). Come to think of it... come to think of it... a law that engines _produce_ petrol instead of _consuming_ it... yes, that would be a nice solution to our energy problems. Combustion engines _consuming_ petrol to produce energy, that's all a dastardly conspiracy of the greedy oil companies, obviously. But seriously now... how do you think an old mill with a water wheel gets its energy? By being _anchored_ in the ground. Put it on a barge, let it drift down the river, and see how much power you get. How and where are you going to anchor your flying windmills? That is what Iskandar Bharuddin means by: "so that the energy required to keep the flying windmill on point is less than the energy generated by the wind" Let's throw money at the perpetual motion engine instead. At least, that won't deface the planet. Only defraud the gullible. Alas, the gullible might turn out to be the government and the funds come out of our pockets." @warren: ""Sylvia Else" <email_address> wrote in message news:425b408e$0$5597$<email_address> <quote> Yep, plenty of nuclear power left. Plenty of fossil fuels left too. We should have irreplaceable damage by 2025 the way we are going thru coal and oil so its too late to think nuclear as it takes 10-15 years to build a nuc power station, and thats if the blind public in Australia will allow it. "Why change life, it is so good now"" @jguy: "<quote> Yes, it needs to be tethered. But tethered to what? A: to the Earth and to somewhere outside the atmosphere. The Moon would be nice, but an artificial satellite might do. Until it crashes under the pull of the tether. Did I write "the Moon would be nice"? Hmph. Allow me to take that back! At least until one lunar month equals one earth day. The whole notion of energy from flying windmills is fully and exactly as grotesque as the perpetual motion engine." @sylvia: "<quote> Off hand, I think I'd just mount two rotors together, and make them counter-rotate so that their torques on the stator cancel out. In fact, I'd probably end up with a setup remarkably similar to the ones show on the web site. Sylvia." @sylvia: "<quote> How do you conclude that it needs to be tethered to two places? Why is it not sufficient just to tether it to one place on the earth? Sylvia." @jguy: "<quote> What with? A stiff pole, 5 km tall, that is going to stay vertical, come high wind or gentle breeze? However many and wherever the tethers on the earth, sooner rather than later, the windmills will crash." @sylvia: "<quote> Why does it need to be stiff, or stay vertical? Having windmills crash is only an economic issue provided you can guarantee that they'll land somewhere harmless. If they're on a 5km tether, then that rather limits the area where they can come down. A windmill with a broken tether could be designed to land, or even just self destruct. Plenty of room for that kind of thing in Australia. Sylvia." @jguy: "<quote> Go fly a kite (no, I mean it literally, not as the usual dismissive insult), and learn. And I am not even contemplating how much a 5km cable might weigh. provided it doesn't cost anything much to build another one and to put it up there." @usenet2005: "<425b5b98$0$29866$<email_address>>, <email_address> says... <quote> Excuse me? For a moment there, it almost sounded like you just said, "guarantee." Surely you understand that windmills of any type have major issues about being pointed in the right direction, which would be impossible with a flexible tether? Surely you understand that flexible tethers will result in having to place the units far apart, to avoid collisions and tangles? Surely you understand that a flexible 5-km tether will be fragile, and subject to constant metal stress, with a "not IF, but WHEN" type of breaking point? Surely you understand that a 5-km tether will NOT "guarantee" that a broken tether will result in a 5-km radius danger zone? Surely you understand that keeping these things a safe distance from populated areas would result in huge power transmission costs? Surely you understand that an airborne device that "self-destructs" will send dangerous debris raining down under it, and also travelling horizontally some distance before ground impact? Surely you understand that this whole idea is just tired, old, NIMBY, where the public wants the benefits of technology (e.g. the light comes on when they flip the switch), *without* being reminded where those results come from? Wouldn't wanna interfere with their rose-coloured magical fantasies, or present them with things beyond their intelligence level (might remind them of how stupid they are...) Imagine how the average induhvidual would react to a full explanation of where their food (especially meat) comes from. Electricity and fuel are the same psychological deal. Get Credit Where Credit Is Due <url> Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum" @usenet2005: "<425b5241$0$5394$<email_address>>, <email_address> says... <quote> "I read it on the Internet, so it must be true." Get Credit Where Credit Is Due <url> Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum" @sylvia: "<quote> Last time I flew a kite I used a tether that was neither stiff, nor vertical - it was a length of string, I seem to remember. The kite went up into the air, and stayed there until I got bored with it (which admittedly didn't take long), and then I pulled it back down again. Seems to me I could have mounted small windmill generator on it, and run the power down some wire. Somehow, I don't think I've seen the point you were trying to make. And I am not Might be a useful exercise. Without numbers these things are hard to assess. It's the fact that it would cost something that makes it an economic issue. If it cost nothing, then it wouldn't even be an economic issue. Sylvia." @netvegetableNOT: "<quote> Apparantly not. :O Go figger. to email me remove the word "NOT" from my addy #politics irc.austnet.org (the aussie politics channel!) #political_forum irc.undernet.org "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill" @sylvia: "<quote> It probably helps to look at the website. One way of understanding the behaviour of these things is to consider a tow launch of an auto-gyro. You'd do that by pulling the auto-gyro along through the still air. But if instead you kept the auto-gyro stationary, and moved the air instead, you'd have a tethered auto-gyro hovering at some height in the air. Clearly, if the wind were now to move faster, then it would be possible to extract energy from the rotor and transmit it down the tether. Changes in wind direction would cause the auto-gyro to move in a circle around the tether anchor point. Rapid changes in wind direction would require active controls, and could, for short periods of time, require power to be provided to the rotor while the auto-gyro attains its new position. If the tether breaks - well, it's an auto-gyro isn't it? When I think about the description I've given above, and the fact that they're all in approximately the same wind, it's far from clear that collisions and tangles will be a problem provided there is some active control of the position of the devices. The conductors may have to be metal, but who said the conductors were carrying the mechanical tension in the tether? I don't think there's any particular reason to assume that a broken tether results in an out-of-control rotor. What's a safe distance? With a reasonable designed system, I don't see it needing to be hundreds of kilometres away. I wasn't really serious about the self-destruct bit anyway, since making it land is a lot cheaper than building a new one. Still, how much horizontal motion are you expecting? It's not like an inflight-breakup of an airliner with a pre-breakup velocity of 1000km/h. I wouldn't even expect particularly high velocities for the rotor tips. I don't think it would be economic anyway, so I'm not proposing that it be done. I'm merely arguing that it could work. Sylvia." @sylvia: "<quote> If you think that was a valid comment in this context, then you clearly have no understanding at all of the issue that is being discussed. Now why doesn't that surprise me? Sylvia." @netvegetableNOT: "A: Top posters Q: What's the most annoying thing in usenet? <quote> Summary: A giant greenhouse covering an area many kilometres square, an enormous chimney in the middle, up which hot air runs ... and a turbine in the chimney to capture energy and generate electrickery. Interesting concept. They anticipate 200MW, enough to provide about 5% of Sydney's energy consumption, 20% of Adelaide's. How does that compare to a standard nuclear reactor? How much is it going to cost, in total, to build the thing? And by comparison, what's the operating costs of such a generator? Surely maintaining a glass greenhouse of such enormous size would involve regularly replacing panes, regular cleaning of birdroppings, dust etc. And I imagine that whole area would be immensely hot ... it wouldn't be cheap to hire people to do that work. Alot of that, I would guess, would be offset by the fact that unlike coal or nuclear, the cost of mining and transporting fuel isn't a factor. I read on the EnviroMission site that apparantly a prototype was built in Spain and operated for a while. <url> "The plant operated for seven years between 1982 and 1989, and consistently generated 50kW output of green energy." Anybody know why they shut it down? to email me remove the word "NOT" from my addy #politics irc.austnet.org (the aussie politics channel!) #political_forum irc.undernet.org "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill" @sylvia: "<quote> The power generated would be worth less than $20 per day at NSW wholesale prices. I would imagine it had operating costs (management, supervision, maintenance, whatever) considerably in excess of that. Sylvia." @aquarius_master: "How can you yapp about Physics and solutionzzz to energy shortage, while completely unaware of the superior understanding provided by the UPL approach to our Earth Environment. The UPL* is rightly too the corner stone of the True Geology, straitening out indeed all the fraudulent Gogological Th�auriz to which you Gogos indeed are hooked ! ... and at the foot of which as well all the fraudulent religious sects beuuuuuuliefs & teachings come revealing their shortcoming and ignorance of both Earth & Mankind History Why not try to understand the basis on which our world and the Universe rests , instead of keeping with your tunnel-vision and your typical sci000ntific narrow-mindedness ! Probably beyond the scope of your weak & Cosmic energy depleted little brain, swallowing as gospel truth any program fed in those Horrid brainwashing institutionzz of alleged higher knowledge : Zee Universilities such a the ANU, WAIT & Monarch etc PATHETIC ! *UPL Universal Pressure Law, concept conceived & defined by Sir J-P Turcaud Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud Exploration Geologist Australia Mining Pioneer Discoverer & Legal Owner of Telfer, Kintyre & Nifty Mines The Great Sandy Desert of Australia Founder of the True Geology ~~Ignorance Is The Cosmic Sin, The One Never Forgiven ! ~~ "Jacques Guy" <email_address> a �crit dans le message de news: <email_address> <quote> snipped uninformed rant " @gwinnetSPMA: ""netvegetable" <email_address> wrote in message news:<email_address> <quote> will start having a Moree using (heat) generator <url> kilometres square, an and a turbine in provide about 5% of that compare to a thing? on the link generator? Surely involve birdroppings, dust etc. And wouldn't be cheap yes it is not on the coast, but people do live out there that unlike coal a prototype was built in and current energy costs are making it more feasible. link mentioned $50 per barrel I guess like any investment a bit of risk makes the result people are" @usenet2005: "<email_address> says... <quote> ...And using multiple cables will result in the unit being blown sideways, and twisting the cables around each other. What's up with this fantasy? Is it just about thinking that ground-based windmills are "ugly"? Or is it just some physics-defying and efficiency-defying expectation? Get Credit Where Credit Is Due <url> Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum" @sylvia: "<quote> I think you're still visualising this as a windmill suspended in mid air. That is not what this is about. It's more akin to a tethered auto-gyro. Making it work is just a problem in engineering. It doesn't violate any physical laws. Whether the engineering problems can really be solved in a way that makes it competitive with other sustainable power generation systems is another question entirely. Sylvia." @jguy: "<quote> Just another academic jumping on the gravy train taking advantage of awfully few people understanding the physics involved. If he cannot raise investor money he'll probably manage to get a research grant. Might even make it into politics, and get knighted for his seminal contribution to renewable energy, however bogus." @gwinnetSPMA: "news:<email_address> <quote> or provide a completely viable way of producing energy, if the submission or idea was put up by a major oil producer - what would you think then ? academics provide the ideas, they generally rely on others to put them into action." @notrthomas: ""Jacques Guy" <email_address> wrote in message news:<email_address> <quote> Luv it :-) Having been on staff at a uni I cannot disagree :-) " @vhbdq: "<quote> The idea may not be practicable, for many of the reasons (mostly economic, but also issues of scale- the weight of the cable, for example) given above. But if you are suggesting that this wouldn't work because of problems with the conservation of energy, then it is you who don't understand the physics. It's really an engineering problem. In theory, it is possible to extract more energy from a kite system than is needed to keep it up. (I could do it tomorrow- on a small scale). Nothing in the laws of physics prevents this. However, you will need very light cables, very light equipment, strong enough to stand the loads, etc. In practice, it may not be possible to scale it up to useful dimensions and still generate a nett output, but that's nothing to do with the conservation of energy, it's just an engineering problem that may not be able to be solved with current technology. Coop" @Nospam: "news:<email_address> <quote> The world has no energy problem if buildings are designed properly to consume little to no energy to heat and cool, and public transportation is sorted out. For e.g, linerar motor trains can do 350-400 mph between cities (centre to centre) eliminating noisy polluting planes and transport getting people to out of town airports. Use more wind farms, wave and tidal generators. There are viable alternative to the inefficient internal combustion engine right now. It can be done while only taking a time to implement fully." @brengsek: ""Sylvia Else" <email_address> wrote in message news:425b4111$0$5597$<email_address> <quote> I alway feel a bit embarassed to point out the obvious. We have this "flying windmill" which goes up X thousand metres into high winds. There are two possibilities: - the "flying windmill" is blown along with the breeze, which means the relative wind velocity is about zero, as is the potential for generating power. - the "flying windmill" faces into the wind, and by jet or prop power keeps position so that the wind turns the vanes to generte power. But if this is the scenario, how can the power generated by the wind be greater than the power required to keep the "flying windmill" more or less motionless against the wind. Oh, BTW, I have this car that runs on water... The only catch is that I have to turn the water into hydrogen and oxygen, which takes more energy than I get back when I burn the hydrogen and oxygen to create power and water. Izzy " @brengsek: ""Sylvia Else" <email_address> wrote in message news:425b5385$0$29866$<email_address> <quote> But have you considered the environmental impact? If you extract enough energy from the wind you slow down the rotation of the Earth. If we wind up with one side facing the Sun I want to be on the edge. Izzy " @netvegetable: "<quote> But I imagine the area would be dangerously hot. Would it not? A: What's the most annoying thing in usenet? Q: Top posters #politics irc.austnet.org (the aussie politics channel!) #political_forum irc.undernet.org "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill" @prep: ""Iskandar Baharuddin" <email_address> writes: <quote> And he made a packet supplying engine development labs around the world with instrumentation and test rigs as a `spin off'. Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd., 662-372-3873 Kalamunda. West Australia 6076 comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked. EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be." @spamlister: "<quote> Just one dumb question on all these alternate options. *true* cost per Kwh ? :) IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual addressee(s)named above and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive persons with low self-esteem, no sense of humour or irrational religious beliefs. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is not authorised (either explicitly or implicitly) and constitutes an irritating social faux pas. Unless the word absquatulation has been used in its correct context somewhere other than in this warning, it does not have any legal or grammatical use and may be ignored. No animals were harmed in the transmission of this email, although the kelpie next door is living on borrowed time, let me tell you. Those of you with an overwhelming fear of the unknown will be gratified to learn that there is no hidden message revealed by reading this warning backwards, so just ignore that Alert Notice from Microsoft. However, by pouring a complete circle of salt around yourself and your computer you can ensure that no harm befalls you and your pets. If you have received this email in error,please add some nutmeg and egg whites and place it in a warm oven for 40 minutes. Whisk briefly and let it stand for 2 hours before icing." @brengsek: ""daestrom" <email_address> wrote in message news:cHW6e.2468$<email_address> <quote> Yes, I did miss that point. "Flying windmills" does not convey to me the concept of a giant kite. So I suppose it would be technically possible to build one. Will someone please explain how such a system would be cheaper, safer, more reliable and more environment-friendly that old-fashioned nukes? Were it not for the feral opposition of the ANKs (1) we would have achieved major reductions in greehouse gas emissions. Fortunately the message is finally sinking in that nuclear power is a Good Thing rather than an Evil Thing. The ANKs still rattle on about waste disposal, even though it is a non-problem. Save the Earth! Go for 70% nuclear power world-wide by 2025! Shalom Izzy (1) ANK: Anti-Nuclear Kook " @spamlister: "snip <url> This just lobbed into my in tray, may be of interest . To keep the aviation theme is relevant in as much that fuel costs are significant proportion of any aviation enterprise." @sylvia: "<quote> I cannot see any net effect on the rotation of the earth. The energy in the wind derives from solar heating, not tidal effects. Now, if you're talking about using tidal power, I'd be inclined to agree that there has to be an effect, though whether it's enough to matter in the billion years or so that remain before the sun get's too hot is another question. Sylvia." @fritz: "Sylvia Else wrote ... <quote> That's because the fossil fueled stations are not being charged for their real impact on the environment. Increase the carbon/greenhouse tax to a realistic level and wind turbines would be competitive. Think again. How are the finite fossil fuel resources *always* going to generate power more easily than renewables ? Surely the non-renewables will run out one day ??? That is inevitable in the short term as we greedily spend the last of the windfall of oil deposits. Renewables will *limit* the increase in energy costs as the last of the fossil resources are exploited." @sylvia: "<quote> The total cost of a power generation system consists of 1. The cost of building it. 2. The cost of running it. 4. The external costs. The external costs are those costs that are not reflected in the price of the power. 1. The cost of disposing of it when it's reached the end of its useful life. This is frequently an external cost, because the owning company ceases to exist. 2. Health impact costs born by the community in the form of taxation. a) Coal mining can lead to pneumoconiosis in later life, and the costs of treating that are not included in the cost of the coal used for power generation. b) Burning fossil fuel produces pollution that damages people's health. 3. The world has a limited capacity to absorb the CO2 produced by fossil fuels, so producing CO2 in one place imposes a cost in another place that has to use a different technology to avoid producing CO2. Add all these costs together with any (probably many) that I've left out and you get the *true* cost. Sylvia." @fritz: "Iskandar Baharuddin wrote <quote> Surely you jest ! The angular momentum of the solid Earth is far,far greater than that of the atmosphere. If the flying windmills were too extract too much energy from the jet streams etc., they would simply fall to the ground as the jet stream velocity slowed, with negligble impact on the Earths rotation." @spamlister: "<quote> My point Perzackerly :) You also left out reduction of budget capital by way of Government subsidies :) Ah thank god for decent project managers who add all that in . Then the bean counters and pollies get to work cutting and shutting. But like matter ( it can not be created from nothing) some one somewhere must pay the piper Cheers Reality its consumer and vote buying means no one will be paying true cost for power or water for a long time to come ." @gnb: "<quote> I don't think so. One story I saw had the land underneath used for grazing or orchards etc." @bernie: "<email_address> writes: <quote> IIRC, serendipitous rather than intentional. Made more money at the casino^Wstock exchange. /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus! X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature / \ and postings | to help me spread!" @gnb: "<quote> Well, for a start, windmills almost never suffer catastrophic meltdowns. Geez, the kooks are out in force in this tread... Even Turdcard has popped up." @sylvia: "<quote> However that does nothing to reduce the cost of the electricity to the user, so to sell that to the electorate, you have to convince them that they'll have to pay more for electricity. That's not quite what I meant. Clearly the non-renewables will run out one day, and when they do, electricity consumers will have no choice about paying the price for renewables. The problem is convincing them that they should pay the higher price now while there are still fossil fuels available. We're reaching the limit on oil already, but there is coal enough to last some hundreds of years as best I can remember. At the moment peaking power stations run on oil or gas, because coal fired stations are too capital intensive. However, they're not as capital intensive as things like solar power or wind-farms, so absent any other pressures, oil and gas will be replaced by coal. This is actually a retrograde step because coal burning produces more CO2 per MWh than oil/gas burning does. I'm sure most people believe the global warming issue needs to be addressed, but how many believe that we need to start addressing it today, with the associated start in the rise in the price of electricity? As much as anything, this is a marketing problem. Sylvia." @sylvia: "<quote> Of course they will. They just won't be paying it directly to the water or power company, but will be paying it in the form of taxation to the Government. The only exception is the inter-generational external costs, which will be paid by our descendants, whether they like it or not, because they don't have a vote today. Sylvia." @spamlister: "<quote> Sylvia can you drop me a contact email address please to <email_address> Cheers IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual addressee(s)named above and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive persons with low self-esteem, no sense of humour or irrational religious beliefs. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is not authorised (either explicitly or implicitly) and constitutes an irritating social faux pas. Unless the word absquatulation has been used in its correct context somewhere other than in this warning, it does not have any legal or grammatical use and may be ignored. No animals were harmed in the transmission of this email, although the kelpie next door is living on borrowed time, let me tell you. Those of you with an overwhelming fear of the unknown will be gratified to learn that there is no hidden message revealed by reading this warning backwards, so just ignore that Alert Notice from Microsoft. However, by pouring a complete circle of salt around yourself and your computer you can ensure that no harm befalls you and your pets. If you have received this email in error,please add some nutmeg and egg whites and place it in a warm oven for 40 minutes. Whisk briefly and let it stand for 2 hours before icing." @warren: ""Sylvia Else" <email_address> wrote in message news:425c6fe2$0$5595$<email_address> <quote> I dont think the population understands that the world will be killed off before we run out of fossil fuels. Nuclear is a quick short term answer to stop the greenhouse affect. Other sources such as solar, wind and wave should continued to be examined ASAP. As long as we burn the amount of coal we are, the rest will be useless in 25-50 years. " @warren: ""Iskandar Baharuddin" <email_address> wrote > Will someone please explain how such a system would be cheaper, safer, more <quote> Well, you dont build "old-fashioned nukes", you build new ones. The population of the western world (<5%) have placed so much technolgy that no solar or wind generation of today could meet demands. As far as I recall, the one major melt-down in the world was human error and poor management. " @sylvia: "For e.g, linerar motor trains can do 350-400 mph between cities <quote> I assume you mean something like the maglev monorail <url> I would love to have one of these lines running say from Adelaide through Melbourne, Sydney (leave out Canberra, they don't deserve it) and Brisbane. To go at 400km/h through the Australian outback would be an amazing experience. But to come back down to reality - how much would it cost? Queensland can't even operate its tilt-train without a huge subsidy. In the fullness of time, aircraft will run on sustainably created fuel - but don't expect Australia to get a mono-rail, or even a high-speed rail link. It would be a hugely expensive toy. It's not going to happen. Sylvia." @gwinnetSPMA: ""Iskandar Baharuddin" <email_address> wrote in message news:<email_address> <quote> message the tether must done in other wind energy to which is equal and might result in the and make them cancel out. In fact, the ones show on extract enough Earth. If we wind up You are already on the edge Izzy :-)" @gwinnetSPMA: "news:<email_address> <quote> that physics-defying suspended in mid tethered doesn't violate any a way that generation systems is Can you provide the same for oil and coal, lets notleave out the environmental costs, health costs, air quality costs. Oil has provided much, if its sustained use leads to global warming (many think it might) and a large percentage of mankind is driven to extinction because of a mini ice age or by major failure of food production how cost effective has it been thyen ? Geoff addressee(s)named privileged or self-esteem, are not the copying of this and correct context legal or in the is living on overwhelming fear hidden just ignore that yourself and your pets. nutmeg and egg briefly" @sylvia: "<quote> The tenor of your question suggests that you think we're trying to defend the use of fossil fuels. Don't confuse what I think will happen with what I think should happen. They are frequently different. Environmental costs, and to an extent air quality costs, are difficult, or impossible, to express in monetary terms because they involve a value judgement. The best measure of the cost of an environmental change that I can think of is the total amount of money people are willing to pay inorder that that change not occur. Yet for all the marches, protests, etc about some anticipated environmental change, I cannot remember anyone simply opening their wallet and offering cash in exchange for the environmental change not going ahead. No doubt at this point, some would criticise me for wanting to express everything in monetary terms. The problem is that if we don't, then we end up trying to decide between the merits of alternative proposals whose values are measured along more than one scale. This is akin to trying to decide whether apples are better than pairs - there is no right or wrong answer, yet somehow a decision has to be made, so we end up defining a relationship between the monetary and non-monetary scales. That is, we attach a monetary value to the non-monetary ones. As for the cost of the human race becoming extinct, who are the people who would be suffering the cost - the ones who would have been born had the race not become extinct? I really wouldn't know how to begin to determine that. Sylvia." @Nospam: "news:425c92af$0$2401$<email_address> <quote> getting Sylvia, 80% of running a railway is the track maintenance costs. MagLev track is a fraction of the maintenance cost as the train doesn't touch the track, it floats over it. A Jumbo jet cost about �22 million, a Maglev train about 1 million and it moves far more people. To lay the track is expensive, yet it is far cheaper to maintain once laid. Take London to Liverpool and Manchester. Both are 200 miles from London. When public owned the trains took 2.5 hours, now private owned over 3. A maglev can do London/Liverpool in about 30 to 45 minutes, centre to centre. Big difference to 3 hours. If trains leave every half hour carrying twice what a jumbo can take then inter city air shuttles will be obsolete. Even now with 3 hour trips, it is still quicker going by train from centre to centre, and you can have a nice breakfast on board too. By plane is a trip to an out of town airport, check-in time, 1/2 hours flight and put down on an out of town airport and then have to get to the centre. Just hassle and no caroline34@example.net." @sylvia: "<quote> Which is great if that many people actually want to travel between the centres. But do they? You seem to think that a capital cost is something you can ignore, presumably because it is only incurred once. But things don't work that way. The money that's been spent on some piece of infrastructure is not available to be used in some other way. So there is a cost of investing in infrastructure - it's called an opportunity cost - the income one could have received from some alternative investment. For example, the money could have been placed on deposit, and earned interest. Another way of looking at it is to consider that the infrastructure is funded by borrowing, in which case the cost is the interest on the loan. Leaving aside the spread between deposit interest and loan interest (which is quite narrow for large loans), the costs come to the same amount in both cases. These costs have to be recovered in ticket prices, but try to put ticket prices above those available from airlines, and you'll sell no tickets. Given the traffic between the major centres in Australia, and the distances involved, a maglev could not pay for itself. Ergo, it will never be built. In England, between London, Manchester, Edinburgh and Glasgow - well, maybe, but even then, I'm doubtful. When I was there, the services between London and Manchester only ran hourly, and Maglevs are *really* expensive to build. Which is a shame, but there you are. Sylvia." @bernie: "Sylvia Else <email_address> writes: <quote> Again; the need to put numbers to things that can't be put in numbers. It's happening. If not in your perceptive realm, then in the realm of others. Consumers in Europe often take the "environmental" choice when offered two "similar" products even when the environmental choice is at a premium cost. Not just in food, but in fuels. Which of course is as valid as expressing the sweetness of a grape in uPa. What would make the human species immune from extinction? Our existence is punctuated by the compulsion towards self-destruction. "Civilisation" as we laughingly refer to it, will collapse a long time before that. /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus! X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature / \ and postings | to help me spread!" @sylvia: "<quote> Given that we have to choose between alternatives, how would you propose we go about it without assigning monetary values (or just numbers, if you prefer) to these things? Sylvia." @warren: ""News" <email_address> wrote in message news:425cf6d2$<email_address> <quote> yeah mate, in australia it wont work! my maths are simple "To make it Work" = $ " @gwinnetSPMA: "news:425cf4a7$0$5397$<email_address> <quote> out costs. global age or has trying to will happen different. Well this makes it very difficult, if enough people think something should happen it will if they are willing to put that position - the joy of democracy (at least for some) no but you are trying to put a "cost" on various options, if you are saying some costs can't be calculated then you cannot in the same breath ask for costings, $$ are also arbitrary and controlled by people who think that everything can be costed. I don't think anyone so far has defended the use of fossil fuels but if something out of their comfort zone pops up argument turns "prove it" scenarios, I am just suggesting that in the context of global money government investigation and investment in alternatives is worth a go, billions on araments yet it is difficult to fund potential projects. The main driving force for this (IMO) is that political position that if private industry is not willing to spend the money it mustn't be worth while. are difficult, involve a value air quality cost can be assessed to some degree, look at health costs related to pollution comparing cities to country area as an eg, for sure they may not be 100% but then neither is anything else that I can think inorder that etc about some simply environmental But they are putting their hands in their pockets, they are asking the politicians to make the changes on their behalf, when they have been ignored on a strong enough issue, governments have changed. wanting to express don't, then we proposals is akin to there is no made, so we end non-monetary scales. ones. then you either assign a $ value or make a value judgement - I equate this type of decision with leadership are the people been born had begin to Well I think it could be seen as a major cost (in human terms), we put costs against 3rd world poverty every day eg foreign aid. I guess it is easier if one can see their society surviving Atomic energy came about when there was a desire to win a war, I believe if the same effort was put into the energy crisis by governments representing the people rather then vested interests, whether it be kites or hot rocks the same outcome would be achieved Geoff" @brengsek: ""Sylvia Else" <email_address> wrote in message news:425c51a9$0$30394$<email_address> <quote> You shouldn't take me so seriously. I was putting up an argument of about the same quality that dedicaed Greenies use to oppose nuclear power. Regards, Izzy " @brengsek: ""fritz" <email_address> wrote in message news:d3hln6$2lh$04$<email_address> <quote> I am really astonished that both you and Sylvia thought I was serious. Which may explain why so many people believe so much of th crap spouted about protecting the environment. Izzy" @brengsek: ""Gregory Bond" <email_address> wrote in message news:<email_address> <quote> That's good new! Of course, the same is true of nukes. Three Mile Island was the greatest disaster that never happened. Now come back and rant about Chernobyl - which every Western nuclear engineer and scientist knew was an accident waiting to happen: poor internal design and no containment vessel. At TMI the containment vessel held. You can read about it in the trial transcripts. Izzy" @brengsek: ""wb" <email_address> wrote in message news:425c8033$<email_address>
{'source': 'USENET', 'other_information': '{"reply_count": 187, "forum_name": "aus.environment.misc.20140226.mbox"}', 'file': 'data/output/usenet-aus.environment.parquet'}